MUST READ TRIMMING THREAD: COMC- HawkDynasty,cccardfactory,LORDSTANLEY2012|PWCC|ih8ca

[critthnkr365]

After reading PSA's website once again and thinking through Bo Hunter's explanations, I believe his probability calculations to be correct and mine to be wrong. Therefore, I am editing this post so others aren't misled. To see how to calculate the probability of a card being graded incorrectly twice, see posts 1655 and 1661 of this thread. Post 1655 also has what this post originally had in it before I deleted it. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Rooftop

You buy your own card. I don’t care if you soak it, trim it, press it, or bleach it. It’s yours to do what ever you want to. Doctor it and try to sell it to me as real, we got a problem.

👏
People can do whatever they want with their cards. When those cards are sold, traded, graded..., the alterations should be disclosed. Let the buyer make the decision, based on honest information.

Have the grading companies put qualifications on altered cards (labeled as cleaned or whatever alteration) vs original and let the market decide the value.

Who knows, maybe there's an entire new market of Bo Hunters that even with proper disclosure, choose to collect altered items. I'm thinking these "PSA 8 (cleaned,
trimmed)" will be less desirable than those same cards in unaltered condition.
PWCC phrasing like asset conservation can be put to the test.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by auburn35

People can do whatever they want with their cards. When those cards are sold, traded, graded..., the alterations should be disclosed. Let the buyer make the decision, based on honest information.



Have the grading companies put qualifications on altered cards (labeled as cleaned or whatever alteration) vs original and let the market decide the value.



Who knows, maybe there's an entire new market of Bo Hunters that even with proper disclosure, choose to collect altered items. I'm thinking these "PSA 8 (cleaned,

trimmed)" will be less desirable than those same cards in unaltered condition.

PWCC phrasing like asset conservation can be put to the test.

Yes, think about your scenario for a moment and forget PSA requires people to say they’re not submitting altered cards...

First, PSA wouldn’t call it a “PSA 8”, it would call it “PSA H” to distinguish it from a legitimate, unaltered card with H being the 8th letter of the alphabet.

Second, most anyone could easily make a PSA H card. There’d be little $$$ in it for them to do so.

Third, plenty of people would try to make a PSA H into a legitimate PSA 8...and PSA would miss plenty of them. The people that get caught would claim their innocence anyway. PSA 8s become less valuable because there’d be more of them.

Any way one looks at it, graded cards tank and lose plenty of value.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by auburn35

👏
People can do whatever they want with their cards. When those cards are sold, traded, graded..., the alterations should be disclosed. Let the buyer make the decision, based on honest information.

Have the grading companies put qualifications on altered cards (labeled as cleaned or whatever alteration) vs original and let the market decide the value.

Who knows, maybe there's an entire new market of Bo Hunters that even with proper disclosure, choose to collect altered items. I'm thinking these "PSA 8 (cleaned,
trimmed)" will be less desirable than those same cards in unaltered condition.
PWCC phrasing like asset conservation can be put to the test.

I understand what you're saying in theory. It would be nice to have all the information available to us we think we need when buying a card. To some, a cleaned card is no less desirable than an uncleaned card (and perhaps even more desirable in some cases), whereas to others they are effectively diseased cards they want nothing to do with.

However, I guess what I'm saying is that this is an unrealistic dream that will never come to fruition because they cannot detect a card that has been cleaned properly. So how are they going to start marking the cards with qualifiers like (C) for cleaned? It's just not going to happen. No one is going to send in a card with a sticky note saying "hey, I cleaned this card by the way, I know you can't tell, but I'm a really stand-up dude, and I'd appreciate it if you could give my card a (C) qualifier so that it will sell for 2 grades less than it otherwise would. Actually, now that I'm looking at my cards again, I just realized that I have two of these and I don't remember which one I cleaned, and now I can't tell them apart. Hmm... oh heck, let's just go ahead and mark them both with a (C) then. Because I know I cleaned one of them and I just can't remember which one it was now. Better safe than sorry. Thanks, and have a wonderful day. God Bless."

...6 weeks later. Same guy goes to a card show and buys 25 slabbed T206s to fill in his collection unaware that 19 of the 25 have been soaked/cleaned to remove them from an album. He happily passes them on as originals 10 years later without (C) qualifiers attached.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by critthnkr365

Consider for a moment the improbability of what happened with the Charlie Neal card. PSA's web site here

https://www.psacard.com/services/psagradingprocess

says that a "minimum of two graders are assigned to every card." It also says that Grader 1 renders an opinion of the card's grade and enters it into the computer system. Grader 2 then renders an opinion. At the time Grader 2 enters the grade of the card in the system, Grader 2 will not know the opinion of Grader 1. If the computer system demonstrates that Grader 1 and 2 have matching opinions, then the card will then go to Grader 3 for verification "to make sure the grade is accurate and consistent with our standards." If Grader 1's and 2's opinions don't agree, then Grader 3 "breaks the tie," and then a 4th grader is assigned to verify Grader 3's tie breaking opinion.

The process appears to be 100 percent visual inspection. A quick internet search of the typical percentage success of "100 percent visual inspection," generally speaking across all sectors, is 85 percent. Therefore, 100-85 = 15 percent of the time, any given inspector will get it wrong.

Regarding the Charlie Neal card, let's assume each time the card was graded (3 times that we know of), the minimum of two graders rendered an opinion on the card. Setting aside the verifier (Grader 3) for the moment and assuming that the graders got it right one of the times, which is to say that in actuality, the correct grade is either 8, 9, or 10 (pick one, it doesn't matter here), then the graders can be said to have gotten it wrong 2 out 3 occasions. That would mean, 4 graders (2 events times 2 opinions per event) got it wrong. The percent of time that 4 graders independently rendering an opinion would get it wrong 4 times is (0.15 n^4) x 100% = (0.15 x 0.15 x 0.15 x 0.15) x 100 = 0.05% Said another way, this possibility will occur 5 times in 10,000 events = 1 in 2,000 events.

Now if you add the verifiers (seems like one should since they too are rendering an opinion as verification), then 6 graders got it wrong. The percentage is (0.15^6) x 100 = 0.001 percent. That's about 1 occurrence in 100,000 events.

Why can't I get that lucky and on a low pop card, no less?

It's unclear to me exactly what you are trying to calculate, but if each grader has a 15% chance of awarding the wrong grade, then the probability of any single card being graded incorrectly is 0.91125%, or about 1 in 110 cards.

The math is pretty straightforward. There are four possible outcomes for the first stage of grading.

1. Both graders get it wrong = 0.15*0.15 = 0.0225
2. Grader A gets it wrong & Grader B gets it right = 0.15*0.85 = 0.1275
3. Grader A gets it right & Grader B gets it wrong = 0.85*0.15 = 0.1275
4. Both graders get it right = 0.85*0.85 = 0.7225

For outcome #1, a 3rd "grader" (verifier) must also get it wrong in order for a card to end up in a slab that it doesn't "belong" in. So the probability of this outcome is 0.15^3 = 0.003375.

For outcomes 2 & 3, we need two more graders to get it wrong; one to break the tie and the other to verify it. The probability of this resulting in a card making its way into a slab that it doesn't belong in is then (0.85*0.15* + 0.15*0.85)*0.15*0.15 = 0.0057375.

Adding up these two probability outcomes gives us 0.0091125 or 0.91125%, which is approximately 1 in 110 cards resulting in a misgrade. That's not very rare.

All other combinations result in the card being placed in its "proper" holder.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

I understand what you're saying in theory. It would be nice to have all the information available to us we think we need when buying a card. To some, a cleaned card is no less desirable than an uncleaned card (and perhaps even more desirable in some cases), whereas to others they are effectively diseased cards they want nothing to do with.

However, I guess what I'm saying is that this is an unrealistic dream that will never come to fruition because they cannot detect a card that has been cleaned properly. So how are they going to start marking the cards with qualifiers like (C) for cleaned? It's just not going to happen. No one is going to send in a card with a sticky note saying "hey, I cleaned this card by the way, I know you can't tell, but I'm a really stand-up dude, and I'd appreciate it if you could give my card a (C) qualifier so that it will sell for 2 grades less than it otherwise would. Actually, now that I'm looking at my cards again, I just realized that I have two of these and I don't remember which one I cleaned, and now I can't tell them apart. Hmm... oh heck, let's just go ahead and mark them both with a (C) then. Because I know I cleaned one of them and I just can't remember which one it was now. Better safe than sorry. Thanks, and have a wonderful day. God Bless."

...6 weeks later. Same guy goes to a card show and buys 25 slabbed T206s to fill in his collection unaware that 19 of the 25 have been soaked/cleaned to remove them from an album. He happily passes them on as originals 10 years later without (C) qualifiers attached.

Totally understand the limitations with undetected cards but even as bad as PSA is at identifying alterations, they do occasionally catch items. If graded, those cards are identified as altered and PSA already has several qualification identifiers. I would think it would be a benefit, if the noted alterations are listed; preferable on the card but at least posted within the online certification database.

Your previous post mentioned that if the cleaning (whatever) can't be detected, then it doesn't matter.
Lot of things (cheating, lying, altering cards, forging autos, crimes .....) can be done without anyone knowing, that doesn't make it right or acceptable (until caught).

There is scanning technology available, that can replicate most of the hard work that BODA has been putting towards uncovering these industry wide grading problems. If the grading companies actually cared about providing, unbiased condition opinions, they would be utilizing any and all available technology, to assist in the grading process.

[Bo Hunter]

Most of the cards I've seen posted where there is no evidence of trimming but which are being posted as examples of some other proposed shady dealings going on behind the scenes seem much more conspiratorial to me. Most of those cards look like they were undergraded in the before pics, and they almost all appear cleaner/brighter in the 'after' photos where they got the higher grades.

Something else worth noting is that a lot of the cards that come back as 'altered' will just keep getting resubmitted over and over again whether by the original submitter or the next person until they make it through. People make mistakes, despite valiant efforts, and graders are no exception. Cards that get undergraded will get cracked and resubmitted or cracked for a crossover until they get better grades. I just bought a Lebron rookie that was graded as a PSA 9 and it might be the nicest conditioned card I've ever seen. I'm planning to crack it out and resubmit it to BGS and won't be shocked if it comes back as a black label. I'd wager a lot of money that it comes back at least as a gem mint 9.5 and that if sent to PSA 6 times, at least half of those times it'd come back as a PSA 10. This stuff just happens, and it happens in both directions. Once they grade millions of cards, that results in a hell of a lot of "misgraded" cards in the wild. But people know that, and that's why there's a ton of fluctuation in sale prices for cards with the exact same grades.

[corndog]

Well, it has happened again with another 1956 Topps card that was graded just two cards prior to the Charley Neal card. This time card-buyer and company trimmed the PSA 8.

1956 Topps Red Schoendienst #165






PSA 8:

PSA Cert #25946575
PWCC link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1363362
Purchased by card-buyer/OCSI from PWCC on October 13, 2016 for $109.50.
Removed from slab, trimmed on the right edge as shown, and graded again by PSA. With the trimming not detected and the card now centered, the card became a PSA 9.

PSA 9:

PSA Cert #27202176
PWCC link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1527723
Purchased by VCP masked buyer ID c***y from PWCC on August 19, 2017 for $760.00. Card was sent to PSA for a grade review and they once again missed the trimming alteration. After re-evaluating the trimmed card they changed the grade to a Pop 1 of 1 PSA 10.


PSA 10:

PSA Cert #27202176
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...5/66600/PSA/10
Sold by probstein123 on August 26, 2019 for $1,780.40 as a Population 1 of 1 PSA 10.


Same card - three different grades.
Prices from $109.50 to $1,780.40.

[critthnkr365]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

It's unclear to me exactly what you are trying to calculate, but if each grader has a 15% chance of awarding the wrong grade, then the probability of any single card being graded incorrectly is 0.91125%, or about 1 in 110 cards.

The math is pretty straightforward. There are four possible outcomes for the first stage of grading.

1. Both graders get it wrong = 0.15*0.15 = 0.0225
2. Grader A gets it wrong & Grader B gets it right = 0.15*0.85 = 0.1275
3. Grader A gets it right & Grader B gets it wrong = 0.85*0.15 = 0.1275
4. Both graders get it right = 0.85*0.85 = 0.7225

For outcome #1, a 3rd "grader" (verifier) must also get it wrong in order for a card to end up in a slab that it doesn't "belong" in. So the probability of this outcome is 0.15^3 = 0.003375.

For outcomes 2 & 3, we need two more graders to get it wrong; one to break the tie and the other to verify it. The probability of this resulting in a card making its way into a slab that it doesn't belong in is then (0.85*0.15* + 0.15*0.85)*0.15*0.15 = 0.0057375.

Adding up these two probability outcomes gives us 0.0091125 or 0.91125%, which is approximately 1 in 110 cards resulting in a misgrade. That's not very rare.

All other combinations result in the card being placed in its "proper" holder.

First, you didn't finish the math problem. Remember, the same card received the wrong grade on two entirely different occasions. What is the probability of that happening?

Second, you are correct that there is more than one possible outcome for each event (each time the card is graded). But only one outcome actually occurs. Once outcome 1 happens, the card gets a grade and no further outcomes are possible for that event. Therefore, the probabilities of each possible outcome can't be additive.

[bensie]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

And the more altered graded cards out there, the fewer low pop cards are out there...which leads to more high graded cards being LESS VALUABLE.

Today a specific card may be pop 2 in PSA 10. Next year there could be 5. In five years there could be twelve. That PSA 10 card just became less valuable...not to mention the havoc it caused on the registries.

So what? Why do you even bring that point into the discussion?

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by critthnkr365

First, you didn't finish the math problem. Remember, the same card received the wrong grade TWICE. What is the probability of that occurrence? For the correct answer, please see my previous post.



Second, you are correct that there is more than one possible outcome for each event (each time the card is graded). But only one outcome actually occurs. For example, once outcome 1 happens, the card gets a grade and no further outcomes are possible for that event. Therefore, the probabilities of each possible outcome are not additive.

Your math problem wasn't well stated. But grading the same card wrong twice is just the square of grading it wrong once. So it would be a 0.91125%^2 = 0.0083% or 1 in 12,043 chance of getting slabbed wrong twice in a row. Not 1 in 100,000.

On the second point, you're mistaken. The outcome probabilities for each of the 4 events I gave are additive, and they all sum to 1. In order to calculate the probability of a card being misgraded, the easiest approach is to calculate the probability for each permutation that results in a card being misgraded and sum them up. You could also calculate the probability of a card being correctly graded twice and subtract that from 1 to arrive at the same answer.

Regardless, I take your point that it's extremely difficult for a card to be misgraded twice then get a bump the 3rd time around. But that doesn't give us a smoking gun with respect to TPG corruption. It more likely informs us that something was probably done to the card to improve its appearance. It could also be the case that grading criteria has changed over time, particularly within sets as more cards get graded. One of the most confusing grading standards I encounter, and one which seems to be very inconsistent, is with respect to "hairs" on edges. Sometimes they are graded as a PSA 10, sometimes they are docked for it. I have a Bo Jackson 1986 Topps with the same issue, graded as a PSA 10, but if I were to crack & resubmit it 10 times, it probably comes back with a different grade half the time. I think different graders seem to disagree somewhat on how much certain flaws matter and sometimes if they are even "flaws" to begin with. This card fits that same narrative as far as I can tell. People who submit large volumes of cards for grading often learn these subtle nuances well. They probably get a pretty good feel for which cards they can get a bump out of. I have a few myself that I plan to crack and resubmit that have a very good chance at receiving a bump. If I'm selective enough and have a good enough eye for it, I ought to be able to identify cards that would be good candidates to get bumps out of.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[tonedef2oo8]

Originally Posted by bensie

So what? Why do you even bring that point into the discussion?

While on your vacation you literally refreshed this topic nearly daily. As soon as your off of suspension you RUN back to this topic...

Glad to see you didn’t learn a thing and are only here to disagree with everyone. You’ll be gone again.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

It's unclear to me exactly what you are trying to calculate, but if each grader has a 15% chance of awarding the wrong grade, then the probability of any single card being graded incorrectly is 0.91125%, or about 1 in 110 cards.

The math is pretty straightforward. There are four possible outcomes for the first stage of grading.

1. Both graders get it wrong = 0.15*0.15 = 0.0225
2. Grader A gets it wrong & Grader B gets it right = 0.15*0.85 = 0.1275
3. Grader A gets it right & Grader B gets it wrong = 0.85*0.15 = 0.1275
4. Both graders get it right = 0.85*0.85 = 0.7225

For outcome #1, a 3rd "grader" (verifier) must also get it wrong in order for a card to end up in a slab that it doesn't "belong" in. So the probability of this outcome is 0.15^3 = 0.003375.

For outcomes 2 & 3, we need two more graders to get it wrong; one to break the tie and the other to verify it. The probability of this resulting in a card making its way into a slab that it doesn't belong in is then (0.85*0.15* + 0.15*0.85)*0.15*0.15 = 0.0057375.

Adding up these two probability outcomes gives us 0.0091125 or 0.91125%, which is approximately 1 in 110 cards resulting in a misgrade. That's not very rare.

All other combinations result in the card being placed in its "proper" holder.

I believe PSA has already gone on record claiming their error rate is 2-3%.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by bensie

So what? Why do you even bring that point into the discussion?

You keep claiming prices aren’t decreasing. Obviously as more and more high graded cards appear, the demand for high graded cards decreases. Why wouldn’t that be relevant?

[ThoseBackPages]

are the inmates now running the asylum?

the PBM's are outta control

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Most of the cards I've seen posted where there is no evidence of trimming but which are being posted as examples of some other proposed shady dealings going on behind the scenes seem much more conspiratorial to me. Most of those cards look like they were undergraded in the before pics, and they almost all appear cleaner/brighter in the 'after' photos where they got the higher grades.

Something else worth noting is that a lot of the cards that come back as 'altered' will just keep getting resubmitted over and over again whether by the original submitter or the next person until they make it through. People make mistakes, despite valiant efforts, and graders are no exception. Cards that get undergraded will get cracked and resubmitted or cracked for a crossover until they get better grades. I just bought a Lebron rookie that was graded as a PSA 9 and it might be the nicest conditioned card I've ever seen. I'm planning to crack it out and resubmit it to BGS and won't be shocked if it comes back as a black label. I'd wager a lot of money that it comes back at least as a gem mint 9.5 and that if sent to PSA 6 times, at least half of those times it'd come back as a PSA 10. This stuff just happens, and it happens in both directions. Once they grade millions of cards, that results in a hell of a lot of "misgraded" cards in the wild. But people know that, and that's why there's a ton of fluctuation in sale prices for cards with the exact same grades.

Are you an employee of PWCC? If not, you have bought into Brent's Tenets hook, line and sinker. Thank you for pointing out how random and worthless PSA and TPG grading is in general. You are making a very good argument for the other side.

As more and more tainted cards are granted high number grades, it will only dilute the waters and eventually bring prices down. People are paying crazy money for the concept of scarcity, and when that all goes away, so will the gravy train.

[Bo Hunter]

Interesting hypothetical: pretend that a Topps factory worker cuts a stack of cards then realizes after cutting them that the Patrick Mahomes auto card came out wide by 1/8". Knowing that it's the most coveted card in the set, he decides to correct the cut and puts it back into the cutter, bringing it down to the correct size. Does this bother anyone? Does Topps need to include a note inside the pack, informing the customer of the card's history? Or do you have no problems with this?

Assuming you have no issue with that, what if instead that same employee has the same oversized card but this time it belongs to him. He ripped it from a pack/box that he won at the company's holiday Christmas party and decides to correct the cut on the same factory machine because he's super OCD about condition for his PC. Does that change anything for you? Is anyone OK with the first situation but not the second one?

I'm definitely OK with the first one, less so with the second one. Others might be ok with both or neither. But I find it interesting that there definitely exists a continuum where most of us would land differently.

[salthill]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

I'm definitely OK with the first one, less so with the second one. Others might be ok with both or neither. But I find it interesting that there definitely exists a continuum where most of us would land differently.

Even though I question your motivation; it’s clear the first is part of the production process itself, the second is trimming.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

I find myself much more in alignment with the views expressed above. If something can be/has been done to a card to remove a stain, pencil mark, gum, glue, wax, etc., and that process cannot be detected, rendering the cleaned card indistinguishable from one that has not been cleaned but is in the same condition, then it does not matter. Dick Towle said he has cleaned countless '52 Mantles that are now in slabs. This stuff has been going on for decades! It is an accepted practice by a large percentage of the vintage collectors. If I ever have the opportunity to buy an undetectably cleaned '52 Mantle, I'm buying it! Some of you may not like it, but that's the reality we all live in. The market speaks with their wallets, and the market doesn't seem to care about cleaned cards. You can either accept it, or you can walk away from the hobby, but you can't change the fact that probably half of the currently slabbed high end vintage cards have undergone some sort of cleaning/conservation efforts. There are some who see the opportunity to clean/flip stained cards as a way to profit, and you'll find no shortage of them if you look long and hard enough, but the vast majority of people out there that are sending their vintage stuff off to get cleaned are keeping the cards they're cleaning for themselves. They do it for their own PCs.

I collect high end casino chips as well. I have a fairly large collection full of some rare and high end chips. The first thing I do when I get a new set of chips, or some nice vintage single chips is clean them. They go straight into an ultrasonic cleaner before I encase them and put them on display. I'm not looking to resell them. I clean them for myself. Some of the older collectors in that community HATE cleaned casino chips. They want all the original dirt/grime/hooker juice to remain on the chips to "preserve historical something or other", who knows. Twenty years ago, those people's voices might have mattered. Nowadays, everyone who is serious about their collections (and the people who actually spend big $$$ on casino chips) pretty much just roll their eyes and laugh at those guys now. I want my chips to look nice, so I clean them. But they're still the original chips! So what difference does it make? Baseball cards seems to be the last market left, still resistant to change in this regard. But that is shifting. Most people either already do, or certainly will, see properly cleaned cards as an acceptable practice going forward. If for no other reason than the simple fact that people can do it impercetibly and there is a lot of money to be made when they do. Also, it's not a crime. So it's going to happen regardless of how frowned upon it may be by the community. It's an inevitability. You can accept it or you can walk away from the hobby, but 100% that's where the hobby is headed. You can't hold the TPGs to unrealistic standards. In Towle's interview, he said the TPGs sent him cards to practice on in an effort to see if they could detect them. It was a back and forth relationship. They were working together to try to brush up their skills and learn what to look for. They weren't able to detect a single one! Not one! That's game over. The train has already left the station. You can't undo it. The TPGs will probably change some of their wording on what is an acceptable/unacceptable practice when this is all over. I bet you anything, that they will say cleaning is ok so long as it cannot be detected. But the person subbing/cleaning is taking a risk. If they bleach out a card and it comes out looking like $#!+, well, they lose. But if it's done in an undetectable manner, then kudos to them! Well done. If a card doesn't look like it has been altered and can't be distinguished from one that hasn't, then what can be done about it? Nothing! If you guys try to take the firm stance against undetectable cleanings, you're only going to get left behind. Eventually, all the good cards will get cleaned by those who don't have an issue with it because there is money to be made through cleaning them, and because people just want their cards to look as nice as they can.

I think the now infamous 52 Mantle that was soaked and pressed to flatten out the edges is an example in a master class of asset conservation, and I'd be all over that card if I had the opportunity and the capital for it.

Now trimming? That's an entirely different animal. I'm not ok with someone taking a pair of scissors or a paper cutter to my cards! And I'm pretty disappointed by the TPGs either not paying close enough attention to the issue in an effort to crank out cards as fast/inexpensively as possible, or perhaps worse, by them being partners in crime with some of these cheats. However, I haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that the latter is true. The former seems much more plausible to me.

The statements I bolded are your fallacious opinions, not facts about the hobby. They cannot go unchallenged. Chemical cleaning is not viewed as an acceptable practice by a large percentage of vintage collectors, and we've proven that bleached cards are not indistiguishable from their uncleaned counterparts. The caustic nature of these chemicals have caused colors to run and fade, and pressed out creases can return. We are not talking about merely soaking cards to remove water-soluble album glues here, and you know that. And as far as holding "TPGs to unrealistic standards," these are their own standards, explicitly laid out for decades.

Your contributions to this thread read suspiciously like posts PWCC and its legal team will point to in order to justify denying refunds to claimants who present them with bleached cards we've found. They are, to my knowledge, refunding only the trimmed and recolored cards at this point, and will be refunding cards they deem to be in the gray area on a case-by-case basis afterward.

Finally, your unironic use of the phrase "asset conservation" shows you are well-versed in PWCC newspeak, comrade. Perhaps you should stick to collecting casino chips stained with "hooker juice." Syphilis, too, can go undetected for many years.

[pip]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The statements I bolded are your fallacious opinions, not facts about the hobby. They cannot go unchallenged. Chemical cleaning is not viewed as an acceptable practice by a large percentage of vintage collectors, and we've proven that bleached cards are not indistiguishable from their uncleaned counterparts. The caustic nature of these chemicals have caused colors to run and fade, and pressed out creases can return. We are not talking about merely soaking cards to remove water-soluble album glues here, and you know that. And as far as holding "TPGs to unrealistic standards," these are their own standards, explicitly laid out for decades.

Your contributions to this thread read suspiciously like posts PWCC and its legal team will point to in order to justify denying refunds to claimants who present them with bleached cards we've found. They are, to my knowledge, refunding only the trimmed and recolored cards at this point, and will be refunding cards they deem to be in the gray area on a case-by-case basis afterward.

Finally, your unironic use of the phrase "asset conservation" shows you are well-versed in PWCC newspeak, comrade. Perhaps you should stick to collecting casino chips stained with "hooker juice." Syphilis, too, can go undetected for many years.

This was my impression as well. I can't believe a genuine, honest collector would be writing these things.

I would only add that even cards submerged and soaked in water can turn out wrong and leave the card with a pourous, hardened, petrified feel afterwards. I have encountered many cards like this over the years. I would argue that almost nothing that is currently being done by the 20+ card doctors explicitly identified on these fora, would qualify as legitimate conservation. Given the evidence that is now abundant and in plain sight, anyone who would argue differently is either invincibly ignorant or is a shill for the card doctors.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Interesting hypothetical: pretend that a Topps factory worker cuts a stack of cards then realizes after cutting them that the Patrick Mahomes auto card came out wide by 1/8". Knowing that it's the most coveted card in the set, he decides to correct the cut and puts it back into the cutter, bringing it down to the correct size. Does this bother anyone? Does Topps need to include a note inside the pack, informing the customer of the card's history? Or do you have no problems with this?

Assuming you have no issue with that, what if instead that same employee has the same oversized card but this time it belongs to him. He ripped it from a pack/box that he won at the company's holiday Christmas party and decides to correct the cut on the same factory machine because he's super OCD about condition for his PC. Does that change anything for you? Is anyone OK with the first situation but not the second one?

I'm definitely OK with the first one, less so with the second one. Others might be ok with both or neither. But I find it interesting that there definitely exists a continuum where most of us would land differently.

The first is part of the normal production process according to the hypothetical you describe. The second is after market, after factory alteration and manipulation in order for some greedy, cheating bastard to get rich at the expense of a ripped off collector. As I mentioned before, if you have any tolerance for the latter, then you're part of the problem. In fact, pursuant to some of the allegations here, you might even be THE problem.

[gmoney328]

The fact that people are even attempting to defend the practice of "conserving" cards is so crazy. When did this even become a conversation?

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The statements I bolded are your fallacious opinions, not facts about the hobby. They cannot go unchallenged. Chemical cleaning is not viewed as an acceptable practice by a large percentage of vintage collectors, and we've proven that bleached cards are not indistiguishable from their uncleaned counterparts. The caustic nature of these chemicals have caused colors to run and fade, and pressed out creases can return. We are not talking about merely soaking cards to remove water-soluble album glues here, and you know that. And as far as holding "TPGs to unrealistic standards," these are their own standards, explicitly laid out for decades.

Your contributions to this thread read suspiciously like posts PWCC and its legal team will point to in order to justify denying refunds to claimants who present them with bleached cards we've found. They are, to my knowledge, refunding only the trimmed and recolored cards at this point, and will be refunding cards they deem to be in the gray area on a case-by-case basis afterward.

Finally, your unironic use of the phrase "asset conservation" shows you are well-versed in PWCC newspeak, comrade. Perhaps you should stick to collecting casino chips stained with "hooker juice." Syphilis, too, can go undetected for many years.

The statements I posted above aren't just my opinions though. If you spend some time over at the vintage net54 pages, you'd likely walk away with a very different view of this issue than you'd get from just reading what's posted here. There are a lot of different voices chiming in on the issue, but this isn't just some new/recent scandal. This stuff has been going on for decades, and it's been well documented and discussed over that span of time. Some collectors take issue with some of it, others take issue with all of it, and some take issue with very little of it. But in the end some views will win out and control the market. I'm simply making the observation that those who take the hard line stance of 'absolutely no improvements to any card at any time' have no chance whatsoever of winning out. That is a dead end street viewpoint that isn't rooted in reality. I understand that some people are purists, and they have every right to their opinions, but the rest of the market doesn't see it that way and they aren't going to cater to the demands of those who do. The fact that many of these improvements cannot be detected means that eventually the majority of high valued cards will have undergone some sort of cosmetic improvements over time.

The issue of undetectably cleaned cards in the market is parallel to the philosophical thought experiment "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Of course the tree makes the sound. But why is this debated? Why is there even value in asking an otherwise seemingly silly question? The point of the debate, and the reason people still talk about the sound of a tree falling is whether or not it matters if the tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. It may just as well have not made a sound since there is no perceivable difference.

It's a slippery slope, and where each of us draws our "I'm ok with this, but not with that" line is different. I'm merely pointing out my viewpoint because it seems to be a dissenting opinion in this thread. Most of the cards you guys are digging up I am in complete agreement with you on. The trimmed cards are highly problematic and frustrating to discover. But the other cards, the ones that aren't trimmed or rebuilt with card stock, for me, those either land in the completely acceptable bucket or the gray area bucket.

I'm mostly interested in solutions and a realistic view of the problem. I don't pretend to have a magic solution that makes everyone happy, but I am listening to ideas and I'm confident that the "no improvements of any kind; full stop" voices will not win over the market. It's just not realistic.

You guys are welcome to disagree with me. That's what a forum is for, a healthy debate. But I'm just a math nerd from silicon valley with a keyboard and some money that I'm looking to invest into sports cards, and I'm sharing my views of how I see the issue. I'm not some PWCC shill or a PBM looking to piss anyone off. The only card I've bought from PWCC I suspect was trimmed, and I'm sending it off to another TPG for confirmation. If it comes back as having been altered, PWCC will be refunding me. I'm not a fan of PWCC. I find them to be arrogant and self-promoting. Although I do like their market price research tool.

[corndog]

PSA Cert #27202136

1959 Fleer The 3 Stooges Peek-A-Boo! #21 - Population 1 of 4

Value gain of $1,735.00

Current PSA Registry Sets:
This cert is currently in Set Registry inventory and is featured in one or more sets, including Restless Knights.

This card was purchased by Ebay ID card-buyer from Ebay seller probstein123 as a PSA 8 for $40.00 on October 20, 2016.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/n...1/187763/PSA/8

Same card was sold by PWCC as a PSA 10 for $1,775.00 on October 29, 2017.
PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1569587

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red box identifies trimmed top edge.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

This was my impression as well. I can't believe a genuine, honest collector would be writing these things.

I would only add that even cards submerged and soaked in water can turn out wrong and leave the card with a pourous, hardened, petrified feel afterwards. I have encountered many cards like this over the years. I would argue that almost nothing that is currently being done by the 20+ card doctors explicitly identified on these fora, would qualify as legitimate conservation. Given the evidence that is now abundant and in plain sight, anyone who would argue differently is either invincibly ignorant or is a shill for the card doctors.

You're describing things that are detectable though, leaving a card altered from its original form. I'm talking about undetectable methods which return a card to its original form. I don't know how these guys are doing it, but I have no reason to doubt what I've read, particularly from Dick Trowle. I see nothing wrong with what he claims to be doing. And no, I don't know the guy and have never sent him any cards. I'm just a collector who finds this whole discussion fascinating.

Originally Posted by gmoney328

The fact that people are even attempting to defend the practice of "conserving" cards is so crazy. When did this even become a conversation?

I think it's safe to assume this conversation has been taking place since long before any of us were ever born.

I find it equally as crazy that anyone would take issue with something as benign as the cleaning of a stray ink mark like in this video below, posted by Houdini that I referenced earlier. If you have an issue with this (and some of you certainly do), or with something as benign as polishing a chrome card, then we will never see eye-to-eye. Again, that's ok, but the market is only going to side with one of our opinions. I'll leave it to you to figure out which side the market is going to land on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HESm_soqXeY&t=24s